Money-Changers New Temple

During the twenty year period up to 2011, the compensation for CEOs  increased to 725 percent, while that of the working class rose by 5.7 percent.  Pope Francis is correct in his criticism of the un-Christian inequity/disparity of economic/financial conditions in America. Materialistic greed undermines the claim of being a Christian nation.   P3
Lee Jacobsen December 06, 2013 at 04:09 PM
Joe, what gives? You disparage the CEOs that risked everything they had to develop ideas, ideas that needed financing, factories, workers to fabricate and make the ideas reality, thus giving them jobs, something to do besides bemoaning the fact that they were not bright enough, or astute enough, even humble enough to do what the CEOs did to earn their wealth. Nothing is stopping anyone, not even football on Sat, to do what the CEOs did, the difference is that they did it, and others talked about it. To the risk takers should go the majority of the rewards. No risk? Think again. 3 out of 4 new ventures go belly up in less than 3 years. Read here. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/21/your-startup-will-probably-fail_n_1904919.html These risk takers provide at least 90% of the jobs. Pope Francis has never run a business. Neither has Obama for that matter. They don't understand the risk/reward principle with respect to business. Sure, the Pope knows the risks with God, and Obama the risks with being a 'non-politician', but neither know the principles of Invest, sell, income, expense, profit. Materialistic greed is a variable. One person's necessity is another person's definition of greed. Is it a necessity to have a car? Not really. Ask the workers who take a bus everyday, to them it is materialistic greed on the part of those owning cars. So, in a sense, your final statement concludes the following, folks driving cars are greedy per the opinion of bus riders, and thus are driving away Christianity from our nation.
Joseph Borrajo December 06, 2013 at 06:53 PM
A caricature of hypocrisy! P3
Lee Jacobsen December 07, 2013 at 01:14 PM
A typical answer from one who has no response to common sense and logic...
Spot On! December 07, 2013 at 01:52 PM
The majority of CEO's that you describe did not come up with the ideas. They are the ones that went in and hacked the company to death in the name of the bottom line. Making 3 million is way better than 2.5 million or whatever numbers you use. I own a company as well, and I pay the workers what they are worth which is a lot more than minimum wage. The guy that comes up with the ideas or takes the risk should be compensated for it. To take over a company that is losing money and get rid of the people BEFORE you figure out what they do and then collect millions for doing it is crazy. No more crazy than the money these sports figures get for what they do.
Lee Jacobsen December 07, 2013 at 02:45 PM
Spot, I agree with you, and it is a pleasure to touch base with another company owner that pays the workers their due, and, like you, most of mine are paid way above minimum wage but all, and I mean all, start at $15 an hour via the temp services for at least 3 months, to see if we have a 'fit'. Spot, the choice is a free will decision of management, hiring the 'fix-it ' team. Ford did the right thing with Mulally, he actually put the whole company on the block to back loans, and saved the company. He slashed costs left an right, and got rid of thousands of people. I am a Ford supplier, I worked with many folk that were let go. Does he deserve the big bucks, I think so. Mulally did what you said was crazy, yet it worked. He ran Boeing. He had experience with big issues and operations and was decisive. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052748703806304576237043111193486 Owners make wrong calls as well. An example of the opposite is 30 game winner Denny McClain, who was bought in to save a company through mutual ownership, but instead fired it's workers, took their pension fund and lived high on the hog. His reward? Prison....... Sports figures, like movie stars, are selling a commodity, themselves, either acting as their own agent or through one. Want their services, such as hitting homeruns, MVP, etc that draw the fans i(customers) into the stadium? You have the free will to agree, or say no to their demands. Any worker, teacher, salesman can do the same thing. Often a good boss beats them to it, seeing improvement in a worker and rewarding with a raise, since the improvement, like hitting home runs, adds to the bottom line. Spot, how are you going to handle Obamacare with your company? I have 100 folk, now pay all costs for Blue Cross, but it will be cancelled next year, and my employees are not happy about that, as there are no co pays or deductibles with the current plan. We both know that will change in 2014-1015. Thoughts?
Spot On! December 07, 2013 at 08:27 PM
Lee, looking at your post I am not in the same league as you. Our company is not an auto supplier it is a service based business that is in the fabrication and repair of fiberglass products. We have worked on everything from boats to airplanes, rvs etc.. Our employee base is small (only 11) and the temp services are not for us. I am glad it works for you. We cannot take on someone without a history in the business. As for health care.... I am lost. We were looking at something to provide to our staff when the ACA was passed. Now I am not sure. My biggest gripe, when it comes to getting rid of people, is that nobody looks at what the PEOPLE do for the organization. In the context of a mfg. company reducing staff as the needed number of the manufactured items is reduced seems to make the most sense. However, in other areas or organizations this is not the case. When a manager does not know what a person does for the parent organization and then removes them is a rash decision. Most rash decisions are not good. Thanks for listening.
Lee Jacobsen December 07, 2013 at 11:05 PM
Spot, your company, at 11 folk, is in an ideal size position to take advantage of Obamacare small business tax credits, but I would be hesitant, many others are, about taking the bait. Why? Read this. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-03-22/explaining-obamacares-baffling-tax-breaks-for-small-business As the article states, "Starting in 2014, the tax credit created by the 2010 Affordable Care Act will allow certain businesses with fewer than 25 full-time employees to get a 50 percent reduction in the cost of providing health coverage—if they participate in the exchanges being set up by the states." The key words are 'certain businesses" are you one of them?. 'Participate in the exchanges', should you? The credit reduction is also graduated with a complex formula, so that 50% is not for sure. Let's give Obamacare the benefit of the doubt. Since you have to participate in the exchanges to even get the credit, first your business has to be strong enough to afford to offer healthcare to your employees, to even generate a credit. Many businesses are not making much of a profit, even without providing employee healthcare. Providing healthcare is where the credit generates, a discount if you can afford to give to ALL, not just some, of your employees , choosing from the exchange plan insurance. These plans are expected to cost around $20,000. Deduct 50% in our example, $10,000 times your 11 employees, can you afford to pay $110,000 for Obamacare, even with a 50% discount? By the way, let me repeat that the small print states that 'ALL' employees must participate and be covered. You don't have to cover part time employees. A lot of small businesses can't afford the $$ to pay for Obamacare, even at 50% off. That is why so few small businesses have signed up. Once you enroll, you can't go back to private, or none, another part of the small print. At least you don't have what I have, massive paperwork required to the govt with more than 49 employees, and penalties of $2-3000 per employee, per year, for not offering healthcare through the exchanges. Two years ago I had 49 folk. I decided I was not going to let Obamacare stop me from growing the business, from hiring good workers, even though it is now going to cost me at least $250,000 in penalties. Many millions of other companies will decide to stay smaller than 49, hindering our country's job growth. Obamacare is costing my employees money out of their pockets via deductibles, and serious penalty money out of my pockets. My advice to you? Wait. No use in giving expensive healthcare to your employees if some can get healthcare via spouses etc and, besides, you need to keep the business healthy, right? That $110,000 was a low estimate and could be $220,000 per year if the credits are phased out, even more as you expand, which happens at around 25 employees. Business better be good for you to afford $500,000 in Obamacare at that point. Too rich for me, that is why we are looking at penalties, and catastrophic self coverage. From Blue Cross to yuck!!!
Joseph Borrajo December 08, 2013 at 11:49 AM
Thank you Spot On. As one who operated a small business, I can say in earnest that some of the best ideas regarding a business operation come from the workers themselves. It's called individual initiative from people/workers who represent the internal customer. P3
Arno Krause December 08, 2013 at 12:25 PM
While I am not a business owner, I run a household, and that makes me a form of businessman since households must be run as a business. My take on the ACA is that it is really a disguised revenue grab by the Federal Govt., shared by corporate intrests. The Govt. will take in revenue from fines/"penalties", the corporate entities will take in payments from private individuals every month...in most cases, more- much,much more, than what those insurance companies were raking in before. The onus of carrying the costs for health insurance for the working class will be shifted from employer to employee, whether corporate or government. Many people have stated that when they inquired about the cost of health ins. from the exchanges, they found out that most will be up to 3 times more expensive than previously experienced, and this is for the first year. In 2015, they may go up even more. This cost is compounded by the increased deductibles of many thousands of dollars,($), thus making a family pay for their own health care in all practicality.
Lee Jacobsen December 08, 2013 at 02:07 PM
Arno, your comment has lots of good points, the most important one being, in my opinion, "The onus of carrying the costs for health insurance for the working class will be shifted from employer to employee, whether corporate or government." Why important? As an employer, I had no problem offering full healthcare to my employees as a benefit, as long as I could plan ahead for the cost. Since I bought the healthcare, (Blue Cross in my case) and could factor in the costs when I did quotes for making parts,( right now I am quoting parts for 2017 etc. ) it was affordable. The problem now is that the govt is dictating the insurance I must buy, and the costs are not known, so how can I quote costs for 2017 when again, a major cost, healthcare, is not known, and is out of my control, even for estimating? My customers are not going to accept cost increases with the excuse, "Obamacare caused the increase" . So the cost of healthcare is shifted from a large pool of consumers, in this case my customers as a part of the cost of making parts for them, to the backs of the employees, since I can't afford the cost of the exchange plans and must go the penalty route. The frustrating part is , perhaps I could afford it, but no one, including my competitors, have a clue of what those healthcare costs will be in 2017. It is a given that they will increase, but how much higher?? As a result, we, or at least myself, must go for the least cost option and quote accordingly in order to win some business, survive, make a profit. The plus factor with the old healthcare system was that business and insurance companies worked together, after all, the business was the insurance company's customer, costs and increases could be accurately quoted and estimated. With the current govt, who knows? Will Obamacare in its present form even be around in 2017? I suspect some of the better aspects of Obamacare will survive, but now it is a mess, and will become a huge mess next year when employees from small businesses like mine, 80 million insured around the country, will enter the exchanges. To summarize, with the old healthcare system, 85% of the country was covered, and most employees had their insurance paid for by employers. We could have 'tweaked' the old system. Now, employers pay huge penalties, and employees pay the majority of their healthcare. I would say it is, as you surmise, a new govt revenue stream, a huge tax on both businesses and workers alike, all to increase the size of govt. What a mess!!


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something